Nets

[teififlies]

Looks like the nets have beaten the rods to C&R

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-s...wales-39445368

[grey duster]

Saw that on the lunchtime Welsh news.
I do not think that there was any mention of the estuary nets.

[grey duster]

Just heard on Radio Wales that one of the estuary nets(out of 3)has agreed to release salmon.Probably dead.
A spokesman from NRW said that salmon stocks on the Teifi are reaching a critical level "We are having consultations in May ".Too little too late. Next critical level will be the sewin.

[Sprayme]

Looks like the nets have beaten the rods to C&R

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-s...wales-39445368

I persuaded some coracle men to voluntary c@r for salmon at the beginning of the month and posted this on teifi river reports 2016 on a few occasions and asked for support and join my proposal. I was mostly met with criticism. Now all coracle men have signed an agreement. It went to press with an article in the tivyside advertiser and now it's gone national on tv. At last I'm getting fishermen and some clubs on board with my proposal. Why all the negativity? Why can't we all join together? Do anglers have to be embarrassed into voluntary full c@r for salmon this 2017 season? Is it legislation probably for life something we really want? Can we stop slinging the mud and all get together and discuss how we can save our right to keep a salmon when the situation is right. Congratulations to the coracle nets men. They have my support.

[grey duster]

And so it goes on.Salmon and next,sewin are endangered.Anglers have been putting back an increasing proportion of fish for years.Just because the nets have at last decided to go from killing all fish to returning salmon we are supposed to feel beholden to them.The Teifi is the most netted river in Wales.

[Samwise]

Fair play and full credit where it's due, the coracles have taken the initiative on C&R for salmon - I didn't see that coming. Sprayme, if you played a part in this move - thanks and no negativity from me.

On the earlier thread there was talk of the NRW commencing boat patrols on the lower river. I'm certain they've been shamed into this by some of the successful anti-poaching activities the coracles carried out last season. It really is the Wild West downstream of Llechryd bridge.

[grey duster]

I see that Welsh coracle caught sewin have now been classed as a "protected food source" by the EU,as with Parma ham,Melton Mowbray pies,etc.Another nail in the coffin.

[Teifi-Terrorist]

I persuaded some coracle men to voluntary c@r for salmon at the beginning of the month and posted this on teifi river reports 2016 on a few occasions and asked for support and join my proposal. I was mostly met with criticism. Now all coracle men have signed an agreement. It went to press with an article in the tivyside advertiser and now it's gone national on tv. At last I'm getting fishermen and some clubs on board with my proposal. Why all the negativity? Why can't we all join together? Do anglers have to be embarrassed into voluntary full c@r for salmon this 2017 season? Is it legislation probably for life something we really want? Can we stop slinging the mud and all get together and discuss how we can save our right to keep a salmon when the situation is right. Congratulations to the coracle nets men. They have my support.

Hi Sprayme,

I have kept out of this, quite simply because anyone that reads this forum will know my thoughts i.e. I have addressed this several times, even over the last few months.

If you had read my posts you would know full well that what you are trying to achieve is something I tried to achieve on the Teifi some 4-5 years ago now i.e. before the horse had bolted. You would also have noted the reception I got then from some of the clubs - I am not going to reiterate it again as it is well documented.

There were soooooo many anglers and clubs on the river with the mentality and outlook of; C&R will never happen, it's an empty threat, if NRW believe that C&R is needed then let them enforce it - this was the outlook of two major clubs on the Teifi at the time, not LlAA, I hasten to add, who have always had conservation at their core. Funny how a lot of these clubs and anglers are now calling for voluntary measures when the writing is on the wall...

The thing is with voluntary it is exactly that; one person or one club's decision. There are no ramifications if one club decides to change their mind half way through the season or indeed if an angler does kill a salmon, because they are doing nothing illegal - it is voluntary. Sure, their club may penalise them, but what of the angler fishing a private stretch etc. With my experience of approaching the clubs and also with this zero repercussion in mind I firmly believe voluntary measures to be a moot point at this stage when the species in question has declined to a level that every fish counts.

I also hope that you understand that the majority of the anglers you are trying to engage with here already practice voluntary C&R and have done so for several seasons now i.e. you are preaching to the converted.

One of the main failings of voluntary measures on the Teifi in particular will be the multitude of landowners. This has been a big issue when one club introduces a set of measures and another doesn't - hence why I attempted what you are now attempting several years ago i.e. a Teifi set of rules with some cohesion along the whole river. You only need one riparian owner (even if they just own one field) or club on the Teifi to refuse the measures and the whole thing collapses, because those you are trying to police will just jump to different clubs or waters. The problem is not solved, it is simply passed on. Indeed, approaching every owner on the river and finding every owner then getting them all to sing from the same hymn sheet is a huge undertaking, to then police what is proposed would be largely impossible. At least with NRW byelaws there are repercussions, so the 'bleeding' or 'deeply hooked' fish surprisingly then become infrequent...

You then mention why clubs did not introduce such measures themselves for this season. Again, I have already addressed that on the forum, but since you want an individual reply; I am surprised that someone like you that has served on a committee for several years finds this such an easy thing to achieve and address in such a short period of time and after the season has started. Again, LlAA would have introduced new measures this year and we were waiting on the NRW byelaws before updating all of our documents etc. so that we were in-line with their main rules and could then have addressed the other rules upon reflection of these new byelaws - we have always introduced far stricter conservation rules than what has been called for, because we believed that much of what NRW introduced did not fit the Teifi or was not responsible in terms of sustainability. However, because NRW were so late with their press release LlAA had already committed to what we had sent out in our newsletter to all members; if you look at the timeline of the press release and also then the membership renewals then it could hardly have been timed worse. Indeed, I did take this up with NRW back in October/November when I could foresee this happening and asked NRW to give the clubs plenty of warning - this was obviously ignored. By the time we received the press release we had already printed and distributed our newsletter and begun the membership renewal process. To then rectify this after the season had started and following the press release would be costly, time consuming, confusing for the members, but also receiving funds from the members under one set of rules then changing the rules after funds had been received and membership issued is simply not fair. Do I agree with what we have in place at the moment? no, and we would have changed the rules had NRW given us more warning. It really is that simple, sadly.

Now onto the nets, because I hope that anyone reading this can easily identify that I am not portraying a positive view of some anglers and some clubs on the river - hence why I do not believe voluntary measures will work. In the same light with the nets, voluntary measures are exactly that; voluntary. Playing devils advocate; what is to stop one of the coracle guys from taking a salmon half way through the season that was 'bleeding'? Nothing. They would not be breaking NRW rules, this would not be policed and there would be no ramifications for doing so. What if one of the netsmen just decided half way through the season that he did not want to practice the voluntary measure any more? Nothing would happen. I commend what they have done and I know full well that some of the netsmen really want to see the best for the river moving forward and have conservation at their core. However, I also firmly believe, as is the case for some anglers on the river, that the fish are seen as a commodity and a resource to be exploited not safeguarded by some. Very sad, but also very true. I would also hasten to add that coracles do very little damage on the salmon front - I assume all those applauding this voluntary measure know this and have looked into this before seeing it as a huge impact statement. As such, I would be REALLY interested to see what they are proposing on the sewin front, which is their bread and butter and what we really need to safeguard on the Teifi from the net perspective. As you have been engaging with them, SprayMe, I assume you already have this feedback? Or have you just been discussing salmon, because the writing was already on the wall about C&R on that front, so actually what has been adopted on a voluntary basis is what should have been achieved anyway if NRW got their act together...

Further to this, I really hope that NRW are not blindsided by this. I am not saying that this is 'smoke and mirrors' by the netsmen. However, say, for example, this was just a ploy to stop NRW from enforcing compulsory C&R on them in 2018 (because they have their house seemingly in order), then they just keep killing some fish thereafter because there would be no implications of doing so, what then? At least with compulsory measures there would be ramifications, hence why this is needed regardless of such token gestures. For me the timing is just a bit too questionable and suspicious (as is the discussion of voluntary measures on the rod+line perspective by those not willing to entertain it when they thought compulsory measures would never happen).

Personally I would prefer to see legislation for life that will make a difference rather than voluntary measures that cannot be applied to the whole river; the river and fish will keep suffering as a result (again, just to reiterate for those that do not bother to read my earlier posts; I have nothing against taking a fish for the table, as long as it's the right fish and that the river can sustain this fish to be taken in the first place). At least with compulsory measures the fish and the river stand a chance. Individuals should stop their doom mongering about how it will be the death of the clubs on the river too; this is absolute nonsense! Angling activity on the Wye, for example, has increased since C&R was introduced. Why? Because the fish levels have increased. Nothing will get anglers back into our clubs and fishing our waters quicker than healthy fish levels; regardless of whether they can keep them or not. One thing is for sure the one for the table debate is not going to achieve that - indeed, nothing will kill the angling clubs quicker than a river devoid of fish. Again, as those looking for comment obviously do not read my posts, I would hasten to add, as I always do; I do not believe that anglers (nor the nets) on the river killing fish is the main reason for the decline, nor do I believe that compulsory C&R is the answer in itself. However, two wrongs do not make a right, and I firmly believe that the attitude of some clubs and individuals on the river can only be changed through compulsory measures. It's a big jigsaw of reasons, but this is something that we can change and influence in the short-term.

Moving this forward, please do not forget the sewin, SprayMe. They are always the forgotten species in such debates. They need to be at the core of such discussions, not an afterthought.

TT.

[teififlies]

Where is the Like button Steff?

[Teifi-Terrorist]

Where is the Like button Steff?

Thanks TF |\

In all seriousness I do need to update the forum software, which does allow such modern functions.

Tight lines,

TT.

[grey duster]

Well said TT.Totally agree|\

[Brylcream110]

I,d like to bring to the attention of all anglers recent fishing activities which can only be described as questionable. Committee men serving the T.T.A. blatantly worming for salmon at Cenarth Falls beat A of the T.T.A. Since Saturday me and my angling colleague observed 3 Committee men hooking into strong large fish all were lost. One angler actually caught a Salmon kept it in the net before having it verified as a Salmon. This took quite some time before he eventually returned it. One Committee man is also a known coracle nets man in the teifi. With all the talk of legislation and c@r, etc. this activity is not acceptable and will be reported. We do have some footage but undoubtedly when asked these members will argue they were fishing for sewin but with a full bunch of worms? I think not. However when one of them was discretely questioned catching a salmon was the object of the exercise. This fishing run below the bridge at Cenarth is a well known taking spot and should be discussed by the people in charge.
Double standards, returning all coracle net caught Salmon, then fishing for Salmon with a worm more than likely deep hooked with a very low survival rate. What we witnessed has got us very irate, please T.T.A. do something, we are all probably about to lose everything, and they are NOT fishing for Sewin.

[Highwater]

I was fishing on the towy the other day and was told that someone had caught an 11lb salmon and returned at cenarth, i thought then that would have had them have been caught using worms, glad someone's got video evidence, well done

[grey duster]

Well done for reporting this incident Brylcream.Disgusting.
What kind of people are running TTA.Perhaps it is time to hang up the rods.I do not want to be associated with this kind of practice.

[Sprayme]

Hi Sprayme,

I have kept out of this, quite simply because anyone that reads this forum will know my thoughts i.e. I have addressed this several times, even over the last few months.

If you had read my posts you would know full well that what you are trying to achieve is something I tried to achieve on the Teifi some 4-5 years ago now i.e. before the horse had bolted. You would also have noted the reception I got then from some of the clubs - I am not going to reiterate it again as it is well documented.

There were soooooo many anglers and clubs on the river with the mentality and outlook of; C&R will never happen, it's an empty threat, if NRW believe that C&R is needed then let them enforce it - this was the outlook of two major clubs on the Teifi at the time, not LlAA, I hasten to add, who have always had conservation at their core. Funny how a lot of these clubs and anglers are now calling for voluntary measures when the writing is on the wall...

The thing is with voluntary it is exactly that; one person or one club's decision. There are no ramifications if one club decides to change their mind half way through the season or indeed if an angler does kill a salmon, because they are doing nothing illegal - it is voluntary. Sure, their club may penalise them, but what of the angler fishing a private stretch etc. With my experience of approaching the clubs and also with this zero repercussion in mind I firmly believe voluntary measures to be a moot point at this stage when the species in question has declined to a level that every fish counts.

I also hope that you understand that the majority of the anglers you are trying to engage with here already practice voluntary C&R and have done so for several seasons now i.e. you are preaching to the converted.

One of the main failings of voluntary measures on the Teifi in particular will be the multitude of landowners. This has been a big issue when one club introduces a set of measures and another doesn't - hence why I attempted what you are now attempting several years ago i.e. a Teifi set of rules with some cohesion along the whole river. You only need one riparian owner (even if they just own one field) or club on the Teifi to refuse the measures and the whole thing collapses, because those you are trying to police will just jump to different clubs or waters. The problem is not solved, it is simply passed on. Indeed, approaching every owner on the river and finding every owner then getting them all to sing from the same hymn sheet is a huge undertaking, to then police what is proposed would be largely impossible. At least with NRW byelaws there are repercussions, so the 'bleeding' or 'deeply hooked' fish surprisingly then become infrequent...

You then mention why clubs did not introduce such measures themselves for this season. Again, I have already addressed that on the forum, but since you want an individual reply; I am surprised that someone like you that has served on a committee for several years finds this such an easy thing to achieve and address in such a short period of time and after the season has started. Again, LlAA would have introduced new measures this year and we were waiting on the NRW byelaws before updating all of our documents etc. so that we were in-line with their main rules and could then have addressed the other rules upon reflection of these new byelaws - we have always introduced far stricter conservation rules than what has been called for, because we believed that much of what NRW introduced did not fit the Teifi or was not responsible in terms of sustainability. However, because NRW were so late with their press release LlAA had already committed to what we had sent out in our newsletter to all members; if you look at the timeline of the press release and also then the membership renewals then it could hardly have been timed worse. Indeed, I did take this up with NRW back in October/November when I could foresee this happening and asked NRW to give the clubs plenty of warning - this was obviously ignored. By the time we received the press release we had already printed and distributed our newsletter and begun the membership renewal process. To then rectify this after the season had started and following the press release would be costly, time consuming, confusing for the members, but also receiving funds from the members under one set of rules then changing the rules after funds had been received and membership issued is simply not fair. Do I agree with what we have in place at the moment? no, and we would have changed the rules had NRW given us more warning. It really is that simple, sadly.

Now onto the nets, because I hope that anyone reading this can easily identify that I am not portraying a positive view of some anglers and some clubs on the river - hence why I do not believe voluntary measures will work. In the same light with the nets, voluntary measures are exactly that; voluntary. Playing devils advocate; what is to stop one of the coracle guys from taking a salmon half way through the season that was 'bleeding'? Nothing. They would not be breaking NRW rules, this would not be policed and there would be no ramifications for doing so. What if one of the netsmen just decided half way through the season that he did not want to practice the voluntary measure any more? Nothing would happen. I commend what they have done and I know full well that some of the netsmen really want to see the best for the river moving forward and have conservation at their core. However, I also firmly believe, as is the case for some anglers on the river, that the fish are seen as a commodity and a resource to be exploited not safeguarded by some. Very sad, but also very true. I would also hasten to add that coracles do very little damage on the salmon front - I assume all those applauding this voluntary measure know this and have looked into this before seeing it as a huge impact statement. As such, I would be REALLY interested to see what they are proposing on the sewin front, which is their bread and butter and what we really need to safeguard on the Teifi from the net perspective. As you have been engaging with them, SprayMe, I assume you already have this feedback? Or have you just been discussing salmon, because the writing was already on the wall about C&R on that front, so actually what has been adopted on a voluntary basis is what should have been achieved anyway if NRW got their act together...

Further to this, I really hope that NRW are not blindsided by this. I am not saying that this is 'smoke and mirrors' by the netsmen. However, say, for example, this was just a ploy to stop NRW from enforcing compulsory C&R on them in 2018 (because they have their house seemingly in order), then they just keep killing some fish thereafter because there would be no implications of doing so, what then? At least with compulsory measures there would be ramifications, hence why this is needed regardless of such token gestures. For me the timing is just a bit too questionable and suspicious (as is the discussion of voluntary measures on the rod+line perspective by those not willing to entertain it when they thought compulsory measures would never happen).

Personally I would prefer to see legislation for life that will make a difference rather than voluntary measures that cannot be applied to the whole river; the river and fish will keep suffering as a result (again, just to reiterate for those that do not bother to read my earlier posts; I have nothing against taking a fish for the table, as long as it's the right fish and that the river can sustain this fish to be taken in the first place). At least with compulsory measures the fish and the river stand a chance. Individuals should stop their doom mongering about how it will be the death of the clubs on the river too; this is absolute nonsense! Angling activity on the Wye, for example, has increased since C&R was introduced. Why? Because the fish levels have increased. Nothing will get anglers back into our clubs and fishing our waters quicker than healthy fish levels; regardless of whether they can keep them or not. One thing is for sure the one for the table debate is not going to achieve that - indeed, nothing will kill the angling clubs quicker than a river devoid of fish. Again, as those looking for comment obviously do not read my posts, I would hasten to add, as I always do; I do not believe that anglers (nor the nets) on the river killing fish is the main reason for the decline, nor do I believe that compulsory C&R is the answer in itself. However, two wrongs do not make a right, and I firmly believe that the attitude of some clubs and individuals on the river can only be changed through compulsory measures. It's a big jigsaw of reasons, but this is something that we can change and influence in the short-term.

Moving this forward, please do not forget the sewin, SprayMe. They are always the forgotten species in such debates. They need to be at the core of such discussions, not an afterthought.

TT.

T.T as usual you’ve made some good points and may i say it’s a pleasure to hear from you on this debate. Hopefully i can cover a few of your points.
It normally takes a threat and a severe measure for people to act; very few want to act years before it’s a major problem. Take global warming for instance, its human nature. With legislation staring us in the face I’d like to think we can all get together and save our right to keep a salmon.
Voluntary C & R? If we all look negatively at it then ok, we’ve lost everything. However, legislation would mean a fine if caught possibly only £100 who knows. Not much of a deterrent in my view. Losing your club membership and consequently also being banned from other clubs and private beats on the Teifi if we all got together would have far more impact. In fact if my memory is correct all clubs already have this agreement in place. Now that’s a far more severe punishment and deterrent.
I wouldn’t embarrass myself in trying to preach to the converted and i thought I’d be given a bit more respect than i have been. I’m obviously trying to get through to others with the assistance of the converted.
Introducing immediate measure? As you rightfully say I’ve proudly served at committee level and know the importance of consulting my members. We the committee’s of all clubs have always run our fishing clubs in accordance with our members wishes, which is why it is simple. 1. Call an E.G.M with possible postal voting. 2. Put all possible actions on the table to the members. 3. Decide the outcome based on the members wishes. Its only ink and paper. Voluntary C&R for Salmon could be introduced within weeks .Salmon could be saved this season. I obviously don’t know but do all LLAA members want legislation or would some rather fight to maintain their right to keep a salmon when the situation dictates?
Nets? I feel so much negativity. If you had all this negativity when you tried to unite the Teifi some years ago, no wonder you failed. You have my sympathy. It’s a big task. Surely at the first sign of breaking a voluntary agreement NRW would initiate proceedings to introduce legislation. Legislation or voluntary, with only one bailiff on the Teifi, policing is a huge problem. We must all try to gain more trust amongst each other.
Sea trout? We all know only too well Sea Trout stocks are declining and need to be addressed and I’m convinced the nets men will address this in due course. Of course the likes of you and i know that addressing the Sea Trout problem now is much better than allowing that horse to bolt again. Should we introduce a voluntary full C & R on Sea Trout and act immediately. Whats your thoughts?
Legislation for life? I’m sorry i just can’t agree with you on this one. My grandson is a passionate angler and i expect him to catch his first salmon this season and like my youngest daughter did, he will have to return it. We’ll have a few tears, he’ll have to be consoled but i will give him the hope that he will one day be able to keep one and it won’t be for life. Do you remember your first salmon? I do. As a past committee member i must look at our next generation of Teifi anglers and encourage new youngsters to fish and teach them how to conserve stocks. I can’t be selfish.
Please remember, I’m not saying keep a salmon, I’m saying preserve our right to keep a salmon. We might not agree to a bag limit greater than nil for many years to come, but life for me is far more severe.